Stereotypes may be based on: sex, race, ethnicity, physical appearance, profession, education, religion etc.
<h3><u>Support of William Jennings Bryan to this amendment to the Constitution:</u></h3>
- Throughout his life William Jennings Bryan supported many causes which led to the amendments to the constitution.
- Two of the major amendment he supported were 17th and 19th amendments.
- After 17th amendment went into effect it ended the indirect election way of selecting US Senates.
- Bryan strongly advocated for 'women’s right to vote' and his efforts led to the passage of 19th amendment.
- After the passage of 19th amendment US constitution guaranteed women a vote in elections.
The correct answer is: " a small factory with unsafe working conditions"
Sweatshop is a term used to define a working place where people are forced to work under conditions which are considered unacceptable from a social viewpoint. Such work might be either dangerous, difficult, underpaid or done under extreme climatological conditions, for example. Workers might be working long hours for little money inside, or even children can be employed.
Answer: Appointing judges to the court.
Explanation: Firstly, enforcing a law doesn’t really limit the power of the judicial branch because they can simply strike down the law if it’s unconstitutional. Secondly, the President does not have the power to approve judicial nominations. That is only the Senate’s job. The President can appoint or nominate them, but the Senate is the one who approves.
Also, vetoing laws doesn’t limit the Judicial Branch’s power really in any way. Now, the correct answer is: Appointing judges / justices to the courts. This is because this power can not be limited at all by the judicial branch, only by congress. The Senate can deny the confirmation / appointment of a President’s appointee, and the Congress can also impeach that appointee later on for committed high crimes. The Judicial Branch can’t do any of that. The President can limit the Judiciary’s power by appointing judges that will go against any potential agenda of the Judicial Branch. For instance, if there happens to be liberal Supreme Court, whereas a majority of the members of the Supreme Court identify as liberal or were appointed by a Democratic President, a Republican President may want to nominate / appoint a conservative Justice or Justices to cancel out their majority and re-take the majority of the court. Honestly, this was a poorly worded question (not your fault at all, but the person who wrote it) because this doesn’t limit the power of the Judicial Branch in terms of its constitutional structure and powers, it merely limits and restricts the narrative or agenda of the members of the branch. Anyway, your answer is B: Appointing judges to the court.
Answer:
it was the holder of religion i think?
Explanation:
